Hello Ines, Ketan, Pascal, and *Michael, Thank you for your comments. Please note that we will need Ketan to provide approval of the sections listed below in addition to the changes being made to the figures. We also await approval of the document from Michael.
> *Ketan, please review the changes in the following sections and let us know > if you approve. > > Section 2.4.5 > Section 3.2 > Section 3.6 > Section 3.7.2.3 > Section 3.7.2.4 > Section 4.2 (added “MUST”) > Section 5.2 (added “MUST”) > Section 5.3 (added “MUST”) > Section 6.4.1 (added “MUST”) > Section 6.8 > Section 10 > > Note that the following terms were updated throughout the text: > DAO-ACK —> P-DAO-ACK > PDR —> P-DAO-REQ > PDRSequence —> PDAOReqSequence > PAREO -> PREOF *Michael, when you have finished making changes to the diagrams, please attach an updated XML file to this email, and I will update our files accordingly. Best regards, Karen Moore RFC Production Center > On Mar 25, 2026, at 12:02 PM, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Pascal Thubert <[email protected]> wrote: >> I’ll trust you on this Michael > > I'm not sure where we are. > I am anticipating that Karen will update the diagrams in the XML, once she > has returned to a desk. > > Shall I sen an updated Figure 19 with extra "o" then? > > -- > Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide > On Mar 21, 2026, at 6:02 AM, Ines Robles <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Dear all, > > Thank you very much to the authors and the RFC Production Center for the hard > work on this. I agree with the changes, including the latest corrections such > as those in Figures 18 and 19. The draft updates are mostly editorial and > improve clarity, consistency, and RFC style without changing the technical > substance. Overall, the edits look good and helpful, and they make the > document easier to read and less ambiguous. > > Best Regards, > Ines. > > On Sat, Mar 21, 2026 at 11:26 AM Pascal Thubert <[email protected]> > wrote: > Hello Michael > > The skew seems to be coming from tabs in my editor. > I reviewed your changes and have no issue with them. > > I believe that we need to add a P before or above the DAO the figure 18 like > below: > > 18 would become > > ------+--------- > | Internet > | > +-----+ > | | Border Router > | | (RPL Root) > +-----+ | P- ^ | > | | DAO | P-DAO-ACK | > o o o o | | | > o o o o Ingress o o o | ^ | Projected . > o o o o o \\ o o o | | P-DAO | Route . > o o o o \\ o o o o | ^ | . > o o o o o Egress o o v | P-DAO v . > o o LLN o o o | > o o o o o Loose Source Route Path | > o o o o v > > > figure 19 looked OK to me but maybe like below it is clearer? > > ------+--------- > | Internet > | > +-----+ > | | Border Router > | | (RPL Root) > +-----+ | P- ^ P-DAO-ACK > | Track | DAO | > o o o Ingress V | > o o o o o o X o X Source- > o o o o o o o X o o X Routed > o o o o o o X o X Segment > o o o o o o o o X X > Egress > o o o o o | > Target > o o LLN o > o o o o > all the best; > > Pascal > Le sam. 21 mars 2026 à 02:50, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> a > écrit : > > Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > > I found though: > > > Figure 3 seems askew, the ^v route between S and D is hard to read. > > Figure 4 is better, but might also be better aligned. > > Figure 7 has skew and some other issues... like this line of ._- under > > "Southbound API" > > I checked .html and .txt to be sure it wasn't just the red/green markup. > > Figure 18... not sure if there is a problem. > > Figure 19, definitely a problem. > > Hi, I edited the XML slightly, and put it here: > https://www.sandelman.ca/tmp/rfc9914-authors-fixed-figures.xml > > I think it fixes 3,4,19. > I fixed some things on figure 7. > I don't know if I got 18. > > -- > Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide > > -- > Pascal > On Mar 18, 2026, at 8:18 PM, Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Ines/Aris, > > Can you please take a look and share your perspective? > > Busy at IETF this week and this is non-trivial (for me at least) and so I'll > get back by next week. > > Thanks, > Ketan > > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 12:20 AM Karen Moore <[email protected]> > wrote: > Dear Rahul and *Ketan (AD), > > Thank you for your reply. We have noted Rahul’s approval on the AUTH48 > status page (https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9914). Note that > "coma-separated Targets” was already updated to "comma-separated Targets” > (Section 3.5, 5th paragraph). This is reflected in the diff file at > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9914-diff.html>. If there is a > different instance we missed, please let us know. > > *Ketan, please review the changes in the following sections and let us know > if you approve. > > Section 2.4.5 > Section 3.2 > Section 3.6 > Section 3.7.2.3 > Section 3.7.2.4 > Section 4.2 (added “MUST”) > Section 5.2 (added “MUST”) > Section 5.3 (added “MUST”) > Section 6.4.1 (added “MUST”) > Section 6.8 > Section 10 > > Note that the following terms were updated throughout the text: > DAO-ACK —> P-DAO-ACK > PDR —> P-DAO-REQ > PDRSequence —> PDAOReqSequence > PAREO -> PREOF > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
